Showing posts with label election to salvation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election to salvation. Show all posts

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Implications From Free Will On the Doctrine of Election

Election

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.(Galatians 4:28)

This verse is an example of one of many that lead into an understanding of one of the mystery doctrines of the Bible. The doctrine of election. Before we trace the leading thoughts expressed by the different biblical authors it is well to look at a couple of the words involved:

  1. Election:ekloge {ek-log-ay'} Strong's Greek Dictionary {1589} Definitions: from (1586) ; (divine) selection (abstract or concrete): - chosen, election.

Divine selection is the initiating factor in anyones conversion to Christ. It is for this reason that Christ was able to say:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15:16)

The testimonies of many recalling their conversion gives their side of the story, that is from their temporal, earthly perspective, saying how they chose Christ, but here Christ, with a double affirmation (Ye have not...,but I have...) both negative and positive, shows that their willingness to follow Christ originated in heaven. This ties in with what Paul had to say in Philippians regarding God working a willingness in us to do what He wants for us, which culminates ultimately in our salvation. Our willingness to choose Christ is secondary and incidental to his choice or election of us, this is abundantly made clear when we understand the significance of his having “chosen (electing) us in him before the foundation of the world”

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.(Philippians 2:13)

We understand this also in John's Gospel:

(John 6:29) This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

(Philippians 1:29 abridged) "For unto you it is given ...to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;"

Paul testifies in this verse from Ephesians the eternal quality of God's choice:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:(Ephesians 1:4)

God had chosen first that we who believe in Christ, should have existence, the natural life, and not only so, but that we who are “chosen in him” should also have life eternal, and that he purposed it from all eternity. God's election. The eternal quality of God's choosing cannot be overstated, it is because of his choosing us that we have come into existence at all. It is the primary, overarching reason that we have come into being. And it was irrespective of any goodness in our parents or subsequent goodness or obedience in ourselves that he foresaw and thus persuaded him to grant salvation, otherwise “grace is no longer grace”. The truth of our election by God is the ultimate reason for our existence and subsequent salvation. This is not to deny second causes, for example that our parents got together in a physical union, or that they or our ancestors honoured God and so his blessing has passed down the generations, these are valid enough, but only in a secondary sense,these secondary causes reveal his providential method rather than the actual initiating cause. This is Paul's emphatic message most clearly elucidated in Romans 9:11 and again in the opening verses of Romans 11.

(Romans 9:11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

(Romans 9:8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

It is essential to understand this distinction that Paul makes here. In the context of these chapters and verses what does he mean where he says- “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God....” ?- is it not true that all children or descendants are made of flesh? Bearing in mind that Paul is referring to the children of Israel, the descendants of Abraham- he is making a distinction, a qualification that must be understood. There is a sense in which all men, women and children that ever have lived, or ever will come to be, take part in a fleshly existence, that is the normal obvious sense, so that cannot be the distinction intended here. The distinction is made clear when we see the example he gives in the previous verse

(Romans 9:7) “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

In the normal use of language there would be no distinction between Abraham's seed and Abraham's children but clearly there is in this case and I will observe this distinction in another place in Johns Gospel shortly. Abraham, in the context of this dissertation of Paul's, had two children (both were flesh and blood, bone of his bone!) But only the child that God promised, (Isaac) would inherit what God had given to Abraham. The other son, Ishmael who in the normal course of events would have gotten the larger share of the inheritance was in fact disinherited. And what was the origin of this older son? He was a son of the flesh, this is another way of saying he came into the world in the normal manner and as a result of the usual reason, not as a direct result of Gods purpose or promise. Ishmael came to exist as a result of impatience and a lack of faith on Sarah and Abraham's part. Ishmael was the result of fleshly thinking, Isaac came as and when God -who is spirit- purposed. When God says he will do something then it's as good as done, a virtual promise, and so it is with all the elect who come into being because God purposed it from all eternity and his purpose must stand.

(Isaiah 46:10) Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:11) ......yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”Now we have observed the distinction that Paul spelled out between “the children” and “the seed” let us look at this pattern repeated by Christ himself in Johns Gospel. In John Chapter Eight Jesus has just told them if they continue in his word (teaching) they will truly be his disciples and they will know the truth and the truth would make them free.

(John 8:33) They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou,# Ye shall be made free?

An interesting response to immediately seek a haven in the name of Abraham at the suggestion of bondage. Christ countered with the ultimate leveller; the law of sin and death:

(John 8:34) Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (slave) of sin.

A little further on Jesus acknowledges that physically they are related to Abraham:

(John 8:37) I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

And then Jesus drops the hint that they have another sort of father and he is of a different nature to his father:

(John 8:38) I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

Perceiving that the Messiah is questioning their lineage or ancestry we have an immediate insight into the mindset of this people. Connection with Abraham is synonymous with a connection with God, as Abraham's descendants they were entitled to believe they were not only Abraham's children, they were God's children and joint heirs with what God had promised Abraham. The Chosen People. This becomes more evident as we follow this fascinating discourse. In the following verse they reiterate their standing, their status by affirming again their relationship to Abraham and by implication to God.

(John 8:39) They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.

Jesus repeats his appraisal of their position with this extraordinary statement:

Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

It must not escape your notice that here, after already admitting a certain relationship with Abraham, Christ is now calling into question the nature of that relationship. When God the Son says “If ye were Abraham's children...” it is a very big if!
Notice that, in the first admission of their relationship to Abraham, Christ accords them with that of being seed

(John 8:37) I know that ye are Abraham's seed...

However with the imperative use of the phrase

“If ye were Abraham's children...” in John 8:39

he in fact denies them with the relationship of children on account of the lack of certain works that are intrinsic to the nature of Abraham's children. I say intrinsic because Christ makes these “works of Abraham” essential in identifying them with Abraham in this way. To summarize then, Christ freely acknowledges these people as physically related to Abraham but he denies their kinship to Abraham and consequently to God in another sense. What are these works? In what sense are they denied as children? It is easy to grasp the relatedness of these verses with previous verses we have looked at from Paul's letter to the Romans when we put them side by side:

(Romans 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

(Romans 9:7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

(Romans 9:8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

What then is the distinguishing factor between those who merely have a physical relationship with Abraham and those who are not only physically related but in some other essential way related so that they are not only acknowledged as seed but indeed children? In the account looked at in John 8 if we follow the incident to its conclusion several ideas will become evident.

“If God were your Father, ye would love me:, ye would do the works of Abraham. ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,...this did not Abraham. my word hath no place in you. ye cannot hear (understand) my word. why do ye not believe me?”

There is an indisputable connection to the spiritual realm in the distinguishing of Abraham's seed and his children- you are of your father the devil, Jesus said- but they asserted their father was God- this accentuates the difference is spiritual in nature.

What does it mean to “spiritualize” something? This is an accusation sometimes warranted and sometimes not, levelled at various views.
Compare this with what is written of Abraham, this is what Abraham did, these are the works of Abraham:

(Genesis 18:18,19) Seeing that Abraham shall.... command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;

Jesus spoke these words

John 8:56)Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

(Hebrews 11:8) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

(Hebrews 11:9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

(Hebrews 11:10) For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

(Hebrews 11:17) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

(Romans 4:3)Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

It is faith then that makes the essential difference. It is here that we must make a cautionary note: We are not declared children of God on account of our faith but rather we show faith because we are children of God. We must not put the cart before the horse. We have faith as a result of God calling us, God did not call us because we were faithful. Faith is the outworking of his prior calling us as children, we see from this why faith is intrinsic to the nature of his children, and why Christ was able to confidently declare those people in John 8 as the seed but not children, because they did not have the nature of children. As it is written

“Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”(Matthew 7:18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

We also see from this teaching that whoever makes out that they are children of God as a result of good works (faith included) rather than as a sign or indication of being children is promoting a false gospel. A gospel of works is not the gospel of grace. Grace precedes obedience, grace precedes faith. It is the grace of election. Faith is the sign following the grace of election.
In his book “Orthodoxy” G.K. Chesterton makes some penetrating observations with regard to making choices, and what is inherent and fundamental to the nature of choice:
“Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else. That objection, which men of this school used to make to the act of marriage, is really an objection to every act. Every act is an irrevocable selection exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses. If you become King of England, you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton. If you go to Rome, you sacrifice a rich suggestive life in Wimbledon. It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that makes most of the talk of the anarchic will-worshippers little better than nonsense. For instance, Mr. John Davidson tells us to have nothing to do with "Thou shalt not"; but it is surely obvious that "Thou shalt not" is only one of the necessary corollaries of "I will." "I will go to the Lord Mayor's Show, and thou shalt not stop me." Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists, and care for no laws or limits. But it is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end.”Chesterton makes it abundantly clear that to choose is also to exclude, and this fact is demonstrated in Romans 9:8
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Romans 9:9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. (Romans 9:10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (Romans 9:11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
That the purpose of God according to election might stand....


God's deciding, choosing, distinguishing purpose must stand, for what is too hard for him? Has he not purposed, and shall he not do it?
They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: Paul is speaking of Abraham's children as an example of God's immutable purpose. Both Isaac and Ishmael were begotten of Abraham, but God declares that those, (like Ishmael), who come into existence simply through the course of nature, by natural means, are not his children. Ishmael is an example of what happens when people try in their own strength to fulful the purposes of God. Of course it is apparent that all children are “children of the flesh” in one sense, and so God's children don't differ in this respect. The essential difference by which his children are distinguished, is that his come into being as a result of his promise. And so Isaac was eventually born just as God promised.
This is John's testament to the same truth:(John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

(John 1:12-13) the sons of God....were born, not of blood,

John is saying that the sons (and daughters) of God do not come into existence as a result of bloodlines, through a system of lineage and ancestry. This is not to deny that in one sense everyone has ancestors, even Christ, as was supposed (Luke 3:23),but that this was not the decisive, critical factor.

nor of the will of the flesh,

The flesh lusts- and many chilren are born, both within the sanctified confines of matrimony and without, because of the will of the flesh, but this is not the decisive, critical factor. Even illigitimate children and those born as a result of rape, or from a botched abortion, or simply unwanted and unplanned by their parents- if they find themselves in due time Christians, will find solace in the fact that God had willed their existence from all eternity. At the proper time they received him, (Christ) and God gave ... power to become the sons of God.

nor of the will of man

It is the desire of most people to have, and to plan to have descendants, to carry the family name on, to live on in a sense through their posterity, to leave an inheritance or as kings to continue responsibilities, with others to look after them in their old age, carry on traditions, religion etc, but it is not the prime reason for the existence of these children.

but of God.

Here is the ultimate reason- God has decided, indeed promised himself a seed. And if Christ is your saviour you are his, and were his from all eternity.

2. Promise PROM'ISE, n. [L. promissum, from promitto, to send before or forward; pro and mitto, to send.] 1. In a general sense, a declaration, written or verbal, made by one person to another, which binds the person who makes it, either in honor, conscience or law, to do or forbear a certain act specified; a declaration which gives to the person to whom it is made, a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of the act. The promise of a visit to my neighbor, gives him a right to expect it, and I am bound in honor and civility to perform the promise. Of such a promise human laws have no cognizance; but the fulfillment of it is one of the minor moralities, which civility, kindness and strict integrity require to be observed.
In Scripture,the promise of God is the declaration or assurance which God has given in his word of bestowing blessings on his people. Such assurance resting on the perfect justice, power, benevolence and immutable veracity of God, cannot fail of performance. (American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster)

I particularly like Webster's definitition of “promise” in the light of scripture. God, who does not lie, and neither can be deceived, who is perfectly just and fair, perfect with respect to power, and so cannot be hindered, perfect in his rock like stability and beyond change- immutable, truthful beyond deviation and wonderfully a God of benevolence, a God of Love- God- when he promises cannot fail of performance!

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. The verse is written by Paul to the Galatians, a predominantly Gentile church, despite the different ancestral origins, Paul, being a Jew and the gentiles, bearing no relationship in that way, he nevertheless is not ashamed to mark their unity, their kinship in Christ. He calls them brethren or brothers. But he does not stop there, he goes on to express the basis of the relationship- Now we, brethren, as Isaac was....
As Isaac was.... The word “was” being past tense, let's look back in history at Isaac, which is where Paul is leading the Galatians in order to bring an understanding to them of their heritage. Paul in calling them brothers is not merely alluding to a feeling of comraderie, but a real kinship, a definite relatedness.

(Genesis 15:3) And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. (Genesis 15:4) And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

When God speaks the word “shall” as in the above verses, we know from the nature of God that it must come to pass even as he says, and that is the end of it, no question. As good as if it were a promise. Now if God not only predicts some future event, but on top of his unchangeable word, he adds an oath or promise then there is an end to all strife. This is spoken of in Hebrews.
(Hebrews 6:13) For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, (Hebrews 6:14) Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. (Hebrews 6:15) And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Hebrews 6:16) For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. (Hebrews 6:17) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: (Hebrews 6:18) That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: (Hebrews 6:19) Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; (Hebrews 6:20) Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Paul calls our attention to the fact that we gentiles who believe, are promised children as Isaac was, who were called, chosen to come to existence and salvation, heirs of the kingdom of God.
Perhaps it is well at this point to probe the thinking of Paul and recall some of the circumstances that were pertinent to his state of mind. We call to mind that he was of the order of the Pharisees and brought up under the tutelage of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was an exceptional scholar of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, (Acts 5:34). Paul was “knocked off his high horse” in an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, as he pursued his interest of persecuting Christians.(Acts 9:3) This incident became a defining moment in world history, particularly in Christendom. Notice Paul was not politely asked to respond to the Gospel!
To Paul, Israel was the chosen nation, the people God had called and chosen in preference to all the surrounding people groups. He was zealous to defend the purity of his faith and traditions of the fathers. As such he vigorously set about to keep “ethnically clean” the people God had called to be his own. He took it upon himself to scourge the nation of the “pestilence” which became known eventually as Christianity.

The people Israel- had not attached themselves to God, on the contrary it was His initiative to make them his people. Just as he revealed himself to Abraham in the burning bush, God declared to Abraham:

(Genesis 17:7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

This covenant has been confirmed again and again in scripture:

And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt? For thy people Israel didst thou make thine own people for ever; and thou, LORD, becamest their God. (1Chronicles 17:21,22)

The truth of this exclusive and eternal claim would have been well drilled into Paul in his training as a Jewish scholar. An alternative reading of this verse is found in the margin notes of the KJV: And who is like thy people Israel, a nation that is alone (unique) in the earth.... It is indisputable- there are only one people of God.

Imagine then what sort of turnaround must have occurred in his thinking when confronted on the Damascus road with the irresistible truth that Christ was the “Hope of Israel” There are, I believe only three references to this phrase in the entire bible. The first two occur in Jeremiah.

(Jeremiah 14:8) O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? And
(Jeremiah 17:13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

It is significant that in the King James Bible the word LORD is the Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. In the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, his third reference to the word hope is:That which gives hope; he or that which furnishes ground of expectation, or promises desired good. The hope of Israel is the Messiah. It is no wonder then that Paul when he was brought before his accusers and sent eventually to Rome spoke in this manner:

(Acts 28:20) For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

Thus we see Christ inextricably linked with both God- Jehovah, and Israel the people of God. This is further attested to when we read of Christ who said to the woman at the well that he would give a wellspring of living water springing up to eternal life.(John 4)

It is here in John 4:22 Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of (ek = for) the Jews.

Let's review our thoughts for a minute: Paul has always known God is true to his word, doesn't lie and is not a man that he should repent, his purposes stand immutable. His covenant with Israel is irrevocable, and unique- absolute and exceptional. God is also just and holy, and has declared the just shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4) That is: those who believe will inherit eternal life through faith.
If God were exclusively the God of Israel, and Christ was the promised Messiah spoken of throughout the scriptures, why was it that so few Jews believed? Why was it that there was so much enmity towards Jesus. How did he himself trained in the theology of the Old Testament miss it entirely; and was so deceived that he became a persecutor of God? This was the conundrum for Paul, the inexplicable mystery, that started Paul's search for the truth that led him to the doctrine of election. And where else would his search lead him but to the scriptures? (Of course we know that Paul was inspired by the Holy Ghost to do all of this, and to record the results of his search) God could not go back on his word and deny Israel, neither could outsiders claim an inheritance that belonged to Israel. And yet now under instructions from the Messiah himself through Ananias, Paul the apostle (embassador) of Christ was offering this inheritance to the Gentiles.

(Acts 9:15) But the Lord said unto him, (Ananias) Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

The word chosen in this verse is the same word translated as elect in other places. Many are called but few are chosen.(elect again)(Matthew 22:14)
The Holy Spirit moving powerfully and effectually through Paul revealed to him the evidence of this truth through the Old Testament. It is to these evidences that Paul points in Romans and his other epistles. Somehow Paul has to demonstrate how the gentiles could be included in Israel so that the promises could become theirs without compromising God's revealed will in the scriptures as to the uniqueness of Israel. By the same token he also had to prove that God was indeed true to Israel, after all his was an eternal covenant with them, and yet it was obvious that many Jews were excluded from the promises by unbelief. Let's visit some of these verses:

(Romans 2:25) For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Paul gives a reason for the exclusion of Jews. Remember circumcision was a sign of God's promises to Abraham and his posterity. Instead of circumcision being a sign of their faithfulness to God, their faithlessness becomes the evidence of their uncircumcised hearts.

(Romans 2:26) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?And now a reason for inclusion of believing Gentiles.
(Romans 2:28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: Exclusion of Jew if circumcision is only outward in the flesh.
(Romans 2:29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Inclusion of gentiles if circumcision is of the heart through faith.

(Romans 3:30) Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
(Romans 4:11) And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

(Romans 4:12) And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. This shows how the believing gentiles are included in the promises to Abraham and Israel.
(Romans 4:13) For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

(Romans 4:14) For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

They (Jews) were not heirs of the promises of God and children of God through the law, (this may be a reference to the laws of inheritance by descendants in an outward, physical sense, the same way we receive an inheritance from earthly parents) but it is by faith (belief) making the difference between exclusion and inclusion. Otherwise there would be no need for faith or the righteousness of faith. God could hardly exercise control or sovereignty over his inheritance if it came as of the natural rights of inheritance

(Romans 4:16) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.

Where Paul refers to the seed... of the law he refers to the Jews who by the gift and grace of God believe in Christ, and where he makes reference to that (seed) also which is of the faith of Abraham he refers to faithful Gentiles, in so doing he makes Jew and Gentile all one in Christ and Abraham the father of us all, and then Paul quotes an old testament reference to Abraham being the father of many nations which gives weight to the gentile inclusion.

Paul includes Gentiles as those God will glorify through the fulfulment of the promises using a prophetic quote from Hosea:(Romans 9:25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. (Romans 9:26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Paul then contrasts this with the quote from Isaiah of a prophetic exclusion of Israel except for a remnant (those like Paul who came to faith in the Messiah)
(Romans 9:27) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect (chosen), and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;(Titus 1:1-2)


Trinity Hymnal
'TIS NOT THAT I DID CHOOSE THEE — SAVOY CHAPEL

Original Trinity Hymnal, #96


'Tis not that I did choose thee,
For, Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse thee,
Hadst thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old thou hast ordained me,
That I should live to thee.


'Twas sovereign mercy called me
And taught my op'ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
To heavenly glories blind.
My heart owns none before thee,
For thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love thee,
Thou must have loved me first.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Implications from Free Will on the Doctine of Interpretation

Order In Nature:


It is true, is it not, that God is not the author of confusion?

It then follows that God is a God of order. One of the greatest witnesses to this reality is something scientists refer to as the "Principle of the Uniformity of Nature." In the history of science in the West, many of the early scientists were Christians or at the least- Deists. What spurred them on to try and make intelligent sense out of nature was based on their confidence, their faith if you will, that- just as God is a God of order- so too that order would be inherent in his creation-  in nature. That is what gave them confidence to do science. They knew that God is the source of nature and they had already perceived the inherent order in God through philosophy, theology and metaphysics. This lay behind their readiness to delve into the complexities of that nature beyond mere appearances. Therefore, they were sure it would, with patient effort and unbiased experimentation yield her secrets. Mankind is an intelligent being of consciousness, capacity for reason, methodological study, logic and determination not to mention imagination, it is through these capacities and recognizing those same characteristics within God, that their expectations of finding nature built upon those same characteristics would be rewarded.

It is because of these facets of mankind- the Imago Deo  (the image of God) that even scientists with a bias against the reality of God recognize this order in nature. God created the heavens and all therein with qualities that reflect his own nature and none more so than in humankind- his special creation; being the only part of created order said to be made in his image and bearing the marks of person-hood. This is why the creation is intelligible to us.  The heavens declare the Glory of God. The order and the intelligibility of God is reflected by the same qualities in the Natural order and these things are made searchable to us by virtue of the fact we are made in his image.

Scientists, it must be remembered, are human beings prior to their becoming scientific, so that they do not come into the realm of science without preconceived ideas. So inevitably they come to the supposed neutral ,objective and unbiased realm of science with a preconceived view of reality. They take their philosophy into science and read and understand nature through this philosophy. Now if they happen to be people that presuppose God does not exist, then all the science they do will obviously appear to them to support their philosophy. So that the order and coherence undeniably inherent in nature is already determined as pure chance, and that the random collocation of events that make up the history of the universe, whether human history or cosmological history is perceived to be without any ordering and primal cause, not by the evidence but by suppression of the evidence forced upon their minds by this intractable view that God does not exist. The Bible has a very apt explanation for  this:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  Romans 1:18-25

Order in the Supernatural:


It should therefore come as no surprise that theology, the study of the supernatural realm has, inherent in its nature this same order, coherence and cohesion. From this primary understanding of this ordered nature has arisen Systematic Theology which seeks to understand God in all his relations within himself, towards mankind and the creation in general.
"Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. It is also called Dogmatics"- Wikipedia.


The Requirements for Understanding Nature:


It is informative to ponder how one embarks on a journey to plumb the depths of nature. The early scientists, that is those from whom we have inherited the scientific method were in the main primarily philosophers. Understandably, in the early beginnings of today's scientific revolution, science used to be called natural philosophy,the precursor to the sciences of today.  These thinkers of an earlier time were known collectively as the "empiricists" from whom came the "Empirical Method". What, we may ask, was so vital in their methodology that ensured the obvious and sustained successes that epitomizes how we think of science today? (At least when they stick to their area of expertise!)

According to the University of Illinois at Chicago the following are the principles of science.
  1. From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).
  2. Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.
  3. Devise experiments to test the hypotheses.
  4. All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.
  5. Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.
  6. Further modify and repeat the experiments.
It is absolutely imperative that we examine the 6 points above. Taken as a whole the six points are themselves a hypothesis about the nature of the scientific method.They constitute a hypothesis about the hypotheses involved in conducting science. Here is a definition of a hypothesis:
"A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth".
As the Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feinman reminded students,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."
The aim of science, (as it is in all of our attempts to understand reality) is to maximize objectivity, minimize bias and eliminate altogether or allow for assumptions.
The 6 points above constitute a hypothesis about the hypotheses involved in conducting science. Surely if the scientific method is essential for knowledge then we might reasonably expect that the hypothesis put forward to define the scientific method to stand up to its own strictures, its own test for truth. Shouldn't the scientific method as outlined in the six points, itself be scientific?

But what happens when we ask that of point number four? What happens when we ask if point number four is itself scientifically proven? Has point number four been empirically tested? Is it testable in laboratory conditions? No it isn't, therefore, under its own terms, it fails as a scientific hypothesis. It is a philosophical assumption. Is it therefore wrong to demand that "All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable" ? Scientists are divided on this issue, but in deference to consistency, the question will not go away. This is the achilles heel of empiricism.

The reality is that some assumptions are unable to be proven "scientifically". The persuit of science is just one aspect of humankinds search for the understanding of reality, in this case it narrows that search into understanding material reality. But empiricism is not the most fundamental toolbox in this search. The ability to reason is. Therefore philosophy, and its focus on logic, and reasoning is a prerequisite of good science. Philosophers understand that there have to be starting points for every search, there have to be some basic assumptions that are in the nature of the case, untestable without resorting to circular reasoning. For instance how do we know that some grasp of logical reasoning is necessary in any search for truth? Any answer to that question must use some argument from logic itself, and therefore, as much as it does, it will be circular.

While the above six points may seem to be adequate there is also a lot left unsaid. What are some of the assumptions? Firstly one must not only be close enough to the system- the natural world, to make observations but one needs to rise above the natural world in order to find objectivity in the observations made. Someone under a microscope is hardly in a good position to make accurate observations about the microscope. As C.S. Lewis said:
"A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet."  
The point Lewis is making is that in order to make meaningful statements of truth (like being wet) one must in some sense transcend nature. Through the fish being totally immersed (and consequently totally wet), it puts "wetness" beyond the comprehension of fish. This means that "self consciousness" is a presupposition to knowing things objectively. Therefore one must in some way be able to rise above ones own nature in order to make observations about oneself or nature with any sort of objectivity.
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
Truly one needs special training to inquire into things that lie beyond the obvious in nature, but what has already been presupposed is that special conditions within our own nature are necessary by which to observe the nature we are a part of.

In a way Sociologist Peter Berger reflected a similar truth when he said:
'Unlike puppets we have the possibility of stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by which we have been moved. In this act lies the first steps towards freedom.' 
 But there are problems with his view as well. "the machinery by which we have been moved" is surely an admission of being limited and determined by a nature in some way just as the fish couldn't know "wetness". But essentially what he has said is right. We can understand and see this limitation and that in itself- if not a source of misery- is at least a source of angst. We are aware that we are not totally free but we yearn for that type of existence. This is reminiscent of more Lewisania:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I can find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not mean that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” [2] “For we are so little reconciled to time that we are even astonished at it. ‘How he’s grown!’ we exclaim, ‘How time flies!’ [we say,] as though the universal form of our experience were again and again a novelty. It is as strange as if a fish were repeatedly surprised at the wetness of water. And that would be strange indeed; unless of course the fish were destined to become, one day, a land animal.”
 The Requirements for Understanding the Supernatural:

If it is indeed true that all of nature, the whole Universe is the result, that is, came into being by the actions of a "Super-nature" (God) then it readily follows that in order to understand and make meaningful truth statements about this supernatural realm would not merely require special training on our part, (like the six points required for natural science above ). No, there would need to be a change in our own nature, allowing us to rise above the natural world though still being part of it. It is this necessary change in our nature that is referred to by St. Paul, and without which we are just inadequately equipped to speak meaningfully about that which lies beyond nature:
 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:11-14 (emphasis mine)
We find then that in order to make meaningful statements about the natural Universe humanity had to have been especially fitted in his own nature to make these observations- to do science. And it is by this capacity that science was able to be developed.

As in the natural so too in the supernatural. Only now there is this difference. We find that the nature that we are endowed with merely by being born human is not adequate, not sufficient for knowing spiritual realities. We must undergo a metamorphosis like the monarch caterpillar. Just as a monarch caterpillar is by nature not fitted for flight so too, the natural man cannot comprehend spiritual realities. We must be "born again", we must be "born of the spirit" to apprehend spiritual truth. With this firmly planted in our understanding we then may observe that no matter how free a person deems himself to be- he or she is not free to know God so long as their human nature remains unchanged, unconverted or unregenerate whatever term you wish to use. To worship God, to honor God, to know God requires a real change in human nature.  It is not just that a natural human being is unwilling to know God and give him his dues, it is an impossibility for him or her just as caterpillar cannot fly. Free will (which is already assumed by humankind) makes this boast of having a natural ability to worship God in Spirit and in truth. This is a contradiction in terms. Humanity by nature, and this is observable in any part of the world, and at any time during recorded history, has had this desire to worship. Humankind is always worshipping something. It's innate. The problem being that humankind without the advocacy of the Holy Spirit, cannot know truly whom it seeks to worship.

So here lies the first and most important requirement for understanding the supernatural: that of a new nature. However the problems don't end here. Having "been born of the spirit" we become a person of two natures that are at war within us.
 "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."        Galatians 5:17
So now that even though our darkened understanding is now enlightened that we may perceive the reality of God and spiritual truths- we still have a principle at war within us impinging on our freedom: you cannot do the things that you would. 
 We also find through the scripture that in one sense this is also not a level playing field. Suppose you are a fully matured (in the natural sense) human being (say 30 years old) when you came to Christ. What that means is that you have had many years of thinking purely in human terms, many years of habitual thinking that have set you in ways of seeing and relating to the world and all that you know as real along a naturalistic framework. Your thinking in terms of spiritual realities is say, only one year old.
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:1 
And so again we see our "free will" is still not so free as we would like to make out. We are not even free enough to understand what Paul would like to say to us. He has had to speak to us in human terms about spiritual realities because we are still so used to thinking along a naturalistic framework of thought. He had to modify his language for our sake just as we do when speaking to our young children. When a child asks a question do we give the full explanation? No we give a very simple one commensurate with their level of understanding and we speak in terms that they would understand in order to help them apprehend that which they otherwise would not. Jesus also said as much about our ability to understand when he said just before his Crucifixion:
 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John 16:12
Here is an example of Paul speaking spiritual realities to carnally minded Christians:
"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." Galations 3:15
When he said "I speak after the manner of men" what other way could he speak? He surely didn't mean he wasn't a man but was trying to imitate one. No, he was speaking in human terms about human relations in order to teach a spiritual reality. So by analogous human terms- in the natural realm if someone makes a promise and puts it in writing, and consequently the promise is affirmed that it is not a forgery, a fake- then no other, nothing else subsequently has the right or ability to set aside or change the promise. So if this holds good in reference to human promises, how much more so when given in divine spiritual relations.

We find then that not only do we need a new nature in order to understand God and spiritual truths we also need time in order to grow.
 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" Ephesians 4:13

 So we see then there are compounded problems in our search for objective truth regarding spiritual realities. We need to over come the limitations on our nature imposed on us by being descendants of Adam affected by the fall from grace; by being  born again. We need to overcome the years of living and thinking along purely natural frameworks of thinking by being renewed in the spirit of our mind not according to the worlds principles but by the word of God. We need to do battle with the old nature that exists side by side with the new spiritual life given by God, and we need to be nurtured and brought up to spiritual maturity.

Therein lies a great difficulty for God to overcome our ignorance. He has decreed (I think this is generally agreed) that the canon of the Bible is now closed. We are told his word is sufficient for all our needs from babyhood to mature Christian:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

The General Sufficiency and Economy of the Word of God:


We know that spiritual babes exist alongside spiritual adolescents and one would hope that there are spiritual adults in the world as well. How does that same word- which for some must be milk, and for others soft food, and for still others be meat, how does it be all things to all people? How does it achieve this when the Bible is the same for everyone? The answer lies within the capacity of the people involved.
"Though he were a Son, ... Called of God an high priest ... Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Hebrews 5:8-13
The celebrated Christian author, cultural analyst and apologist Frances Schaeffer

“The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.” -A Christian Manifesto
I believe what he said also applies to a Christians' use of the word of God as is also alluded to by the writer of Hebrews. We see things in bits and pieces, both the world around us and the world beyond us- the spiritual realm we see in bits and pieces rather than as a cohesive whole. This must be so otherwise the inherent contradictions in what many believe would be manifest to us. For example we would be able to see that the idea of God making good his promise to:
 "... build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18-
would be impossible to fulfill against a background of total libertarian freedom that most of evangelical Christianity espouses when they think of "free will". What is the Church but a group of individuals in possession of mind, will and emotions? If that individual will is perfectly free, then how can God's guarantee be fulfilled? If he cannot guarantee salvation of the individual- how then that of the whole?  How could his promise be made good? The God of Abraham is a God of miracles but not the God of nonsense. The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind sees as false. Or as John Locke said:
"He that believes, without having any reason for believing may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays obedience due to his maker."
Fortunately this glaring inconsistency of belief does not change the reality, God does infallibly continue to save to the uttermost those for whom Christ died. But what this clinging to of ideas originating in natural philosophy does do to the church- is to keep her a perpetual child. And this admixture of natural philosophy with Biblical principles causes a confused and inconsistent pattern through which the scriptures are interpreted.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 
Far from being an excuse for remaining a permanent child St. Paul promises, or rather the Holy Spirit through Paul promises clarity and maturity of vision in the future. The perfection of that may indeed lie on the other side of this life but as this verse shows we are to expect spiritual growth and clarity of vision.
 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11 
What are the childish things but those that we knew in our pre-Christian era, or those things that we believed in our Christian infancy? A carry over from the worldly experience of life.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."2 Corinthians 5:17

We Ought to be Challenged by Inconsistency and Paradox:


In the natural order we find that helium has the same properties on earth as it does in the far flung corners of the Universe. And if we find anomalies with the nature of gravity here, it will hold true for the nature of gravity everywhere. So too in the supernatural. If through carrying over a natural understanding from the carnal realm we misunderstand God's plan and misconstrue his purposes in a particular place the whole tenor of scripture is affected. They are a coherent whole and a distortion anywhere becomes a distortion of the whole, though the effect on the whole is less overall than the effect of the distortion in the one particular truth.

One can liken it to a photo-shopped image. What is God like? How do we know that the "image" of God we hold in our heads is the real deal?  Just as a photo-shopped image may differ in small undetectable ways from the true and totally accurate image; we may hold a distortion in our heads which doesn't truly comprehend what God is like in some way.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2 


We as his children read his word but we read his word through a mind that is not completely transformed and therefore attempt to understand spiritual realities through the lens of a carnal mind.

 When looking at photographs of people, we can recognize those we have perhaps briefly met or known as a passing acquaintance, but with certain limitations. With this sort of acquaintance it would be easy to line up a group of photos which all looked reasonably the same- so the subject was recognizable in all, but with minor differences introduced by editing properties of the picture. Only if the subject were intimately known by that person would those differences be discernible.

Someone once said that if all pianos were tuned by the same perfect piano tuning fork then they would all be in tune. But not only in tune with it, they would all be in tune with each other. Is this not what God intends by  "the unity of the faith"?

His plan for salvation follows in an orderly fashion; as with the natural so too there is order in the supernatural. His Word is logical and reasonable even if it is untenable for some, or unreachable for others, it may be mysterious and unimaginable to the natural mind, and yet under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, divine revelation manifests the unsearchable riches of Christ. But in the supernatural (the spiritual realm),there is a caveat which Paul describes here:
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."Corinthians 2:14 N.I.V.
In order to understand the true nature of spiritual realities one must be born of the spirit of God.
It is for this reason that a college professor with multiple degrees may wax long and eloquently on God, theology, scriptures and even salvation and completely miss the mark. Conversely a very young person may know more of God in a real sense. Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel and yet knew not how essential it was "to be born again."

In the early Universities (which Christianity promoted) theology was considered the queen of all the disciplines. That is- that the knowledge of God was what rendered all the knowledge of everything else intelligible and tied all that diversity into unity. This is where we get the name uni-versity. Unity in diversity. From this it follows there can be no real contradiction in his Word, it is our preconceived ideas and natural  understanding (as opposed to spiritual) that gets in the way. That is not to say that there is nothing difficult to understand, or that some things appear very much like contradictions. That too is part of the reason for theology, to understand and tease out those difficulties.

Remembering the words Christ spoke on earth shortly before his return to where he had come from we also understand another reason why there appear to be these contradictions:
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:12-13
The written Word of God- the Bible is, as one Pastor put it by an an acronym-  "Believers Instructions Before Leaving Earth" So this Word represents all that God wishes us to know from our spiritual infancy to our spiritual maturity.
"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" Ephesians 4:13

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" 1 Peter 2:2

"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." 1 Corinthians 3:2 

Inviolable Immutable Characteristics Basic To Who God Is:


It is for this reason that these lines are written, to make clear, with God's help, and without contradiction, certain verses which have given rise to a distorted view of salvation.
While the idea of universal salvation appears reasonable and attractive, because it is not in fact based on the reality of God's word, it gives rise to disastrous consequences in our thinking, particularly in regard to the power of God. While all Christians maintain a vestige of appreciation for the omnipotence of God, (to say nothing of the fear of God, or the sovereignty of God) a closer examination will show that with many this is little more than lip service, especially when the following verses are not taken seriously. Christ warns us not to judge according to appearances!

In short then, do we truly believe that God accomplishes all that he sets out to do?:
(Isaiah 46:10) ....... My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:11) ........:yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

And also: (Hebrews 6:17) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
These verses affirm the omnipotence of God. Everything he sets out and determines to do, comes to pass, it gets done- period. His plan, or his counsel is immutable, unchangeable as Hebrews confirms, and therefore he is trustworthy, irrefutable, and in an ultimate sense, irresistible. I emphasize in an ultimate sense. This understanding is underscored by countless verses throughout the Bible and is foundational to his nature, to who he is. It is imperative we understand in the depths of our heart that these things are so. Then when any other doctrine or teaching challenges these basic premises, we ought to raise our eyebrows and seriously consider the validity of what is being said and taught.
Let me reiterate what main points we have agreed upon so far: (Speaking to those who agree the Bible is authoritative.)
God is not the author of confusion.
God does not contradict himself.
God is as good as his Word, he is what he says he is, and he is true to what he says he will do.
God does not change, the same yesterday today and forever.
His omniscience and omnipotence ensures whatsoever he decides to do, comes to pass.
 These concepts are properly basic to our understanding of who God is and what he is like.

Now with these concepts concreted into our understanding consider this apparent contradiction: Time and again 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 are quoted (in fact misquoted) as verses which are supposed to reinforce the idea of universal salvation. By that I mean, the thought that God's plan is to save each and every human being. Now while not against the idea per se , it may sound an awesome display of the love of God, but does it fit the reality of God's word and the reality of experience? While we are not making experience the foundation of all that we believe it is still valuable to observe our experiences in the light of scripture.
Is it not our experience that all are not saved? And are there not scriptures that point to a reality that not all are God's people,  that not all are saved?







 

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." Matthew 13:40

Why The Contradiction, How is it Dissolved?


Now remember the above five points, if you are in agreement with them, then the meaning of the following verses ought to be reconsidered:

(1 Timothy 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Peter 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Is it conceivable that the Mighty God of Heaven and Earth- who merely spoke to the void and all creation obeyed by coming into being, is it really possible, that if he determines that all mankind are to be saved, is it not seen to be contrary to the very nature of God that this should not happen? In other words, if he has planned it to happen, must it not happen according to his mighty power? Isn't this self evident?  Must we not either re-interpret his nature (omnipotence, omniscience, sovereignty etc) or re-interpret these verses?

At this point I anticipate certain objections. Namely: Mankind are a special case:

Has not God  limited his power in order to make man responsible for his actions?

Didn't God in the garden of Eden intend Adam and Eve to obey him and yet they didn't?

Doesn't that require us to modify or limit God's omnipotence?

Mustn't we then acknowledge his power and omnipotence as supreme in all things with the exception of the will of man?

Why can't we say his power is over all circumstances with the exception he himself has created with regard to salvation?

I answer these objections:
Here again we are running contrary to the express intention and declaration of scripture, particularly with regard to salvation, and remember (John 10:35) ....the scripture cannot be broken;-
(Isaiah 59:1) Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: Wherever there is mention of the Lord's hand or arm we understand it to be speaking specifically of his power.So his power is not reduced by the will of man that he cannot save.
(John 17:2) As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. If one of those he had predestined to save could refuse eternal life then how could the above verse be true? The verse would then have to read: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should offer eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
(Hebrews 7:25) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. How could we trust in that promise if at a mere mans whim his plan could be foiled?
(Matthew 16:18) ...... I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. What is the Church? Is it not the body of true believers made up of individuals? But if one of those individuals intended for salvation didn't make it for whatever reason, then how could it be true to say the gates of hell had not prevailed?

Why is it that most of Evangelical Christianity (like virtually all of secular humanity) would far rather escape from the horns of this dilemma by reducing...no by domesticating God in his power and ability in order to keep this sense of his own superiority over God?

What shall we say then of these two verses that seemingly contradict his omnipotent, perfect and sovereign will ? It is clear that we must read 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 with an understanding of that word “all” as being within certain qualifications. Either that or we will subconsciously re-interpret the meaning of His power as being something much less than what it really is. What then, happens, to the prayer of faith?

How can we consistently pray for an individuals salvation when we believe in the absolute, inviolable will of man?
Fortunately the Holy Spirit, when He prays through us, pays no heed to neither our private interpretation of scripture nor our inconsistency!

Verses like this become obscure and minimized:
(Ephesians 1:11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (emphasis mine)

How interesting that the little word “all” is in that verse minimized and made of no account in the minds of those who believe in the sovereignty of man over and above the sovereignty of God. If God works all things according to his own purposes, then why do they insist that God is unable to work his will through the will of unwilling man?
This is tantamount to saying:
Premise 1 - Pharaoh refused God
Premise 2 - Pharaoh is a man.
Conclusion - Therefore all men can thwart Gods plan.

The very point of the Story about Pharaoh's continued unwillingness is that God did work his plan out- not despite Pharaoh's unwillingness but through his unwillingness. So in this instance negatively we can see God's plan achieved by his unwillingness. In the following verse we also see God working out his plan positively by working willingness in the subject:

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."Philippians 2:13

We see in Ephesian 1:11 that in perfect keeping with the context of this verse, that the scriptures are speaking of salvation here. God has purposed ahead of time (that is what predestined means) that his elect (his chosen people) are "in Christ" and gain the inheritance he has promised. A true understanding of Romans 8:28 may be found in a comparison with this verse. God is not a patch-up God! It is clear when the full effect of this verse is understood that even mankind's disobedience is according to his deeper plan as the following example illustrates.(And what example could be more important?)
(Acts 4:27-28) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus .......both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Emphasis mine) 

Even evil, unbelief and disobedience work together to accomplish the will of God!
No wonder then that Paul exclaimed:
“For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)
And lo, what have we here? That little word "all" pops up three times. Notice first, all are in unbelief, here at last the word is without exception! (well don't include Christ!) And second, what is God's purpose?- that he might have mercy upon all. Now we must be careful- God cannot show mercy to someone who deserves salvation, how could it be termed mercy anymore, mercy is no longer mercy. So all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23) so that he might have (if he so wills) mercy on anyone. The word “all” is qualified by the word “might”
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”(Romans 9:15-16) 
Here the sovereignty of God is at work, so that “it is not of him that willeth” but repentance and faith happens only “.......... if God peradventure” (perchance) “will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 Timothy 2:25). Thirdly, we notice the word "all" pertains to- well everything, it all originated in him, every circumstance is made possible by him, and everything must answer to him. All glory to him. Amen.

These two verses (1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 )are the main verses that appear to support the idea of universal salvation, as opposed to the whole tenor of scripture that declares:

(Acts 2:39) For the promise (of eternal life) is unto you, and to your children,(Jews) and to all that are afar off, (Gentiles) even as many as the Lord our God shall call. It is apparent that the general call of the two distinctive groups (Jew and Gentile) is qualified by the last part of the verse- "as many as", plainly not all.

How then, should we understand 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9? If there is one unifying word in these two verses it is found in the little word "all"- "Who will have all men to be saved," and "that all should come to repentance"
We know that on some occasions "all" doesn't necessarily mean every single one in an absolute sense. Like when Mother calls "all" for dinner. Clearly this is an instance where we have a qualified use of the word "all", it may be all the family, or all within earshot, all who hear. It is clear by the testimony of many other scriptures that 1 Timothy 2:4 must be understood as “who will have all manner of men to be saved” Meaning all kinds of men. This sense is exemplified in Acts 13:48:
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”
It is just not feasible that “as many as” could mean all mankind, it means all in a qualified sense: all those who God has shown mercy to. “(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Faith- the gift God gave that enables us to believe the "foolishness of preaching"

And 2 Peter 3:9 is explained when we remember this precept for interpreting scripture: “A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof text” That is, we are reading a meaning of our own choosing into the scripture when we don't pay any attention to the whole passage, it becomes an excuse for pushing our own agenda. A close examination of the context of the verse in question by identifying who Peter is speaking of will verify that the “all” coming to repentance is the Church! (The Church- past present and future- the called out body of believers whom “he hath chosen ... ...before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) This makes perfect sense, viz- that according to Peter the brethren should not be like the rest of the world scoffing and mocking the day of judgement, reminding them that mockery was nothing new but way back in Noah's time they laughed at the coming judgement, until the day of the flood. But that the day of the Lord and the associated destruction, was not yet because all future believers needed their day of visitation whereby they are granted repentance to life and then shall the end come. The husbandman of the ages waits patiently for the crop that will in due time spring up from the good seed and will not allow hasty destruction of the tares lest the wheat be destroyed also but will gather them up at the appointed time. (Mathew 13 fwd.)

How The Saints of Old Resolved It:

I recently came across a book which deals almost exclusively with the problem we are talking about, published in 1647- It is called "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen. This is written on the back cover of the book republished in an easy to read format “Life By His Death!”, (Grace Publications,1992) -"It is suggested that no-one has ever succeeded in refuting the thesis that Owen here so fully expounds and defends from the Scriptures." (Words in blue are quoted from Owen's book)

I quote from p35, "If you look carefully at any verse which uses the word 'all', and examine it in its context, you will soon be persuaded that nowhere does scripture say that Christ died for each and every man."

Here is what John Owen says about that little three letter word: "There are some general things that need to be said first, about the use of the word 'all'. It has two meanings in normal use. It can either mean 'the entire number of', or, 'those of every sort'. I am prepared to say that not more than once in ten times does it mean 'the entire number' in scripture! The most common usage is to mean 'those of every sort'. For example:

(Luke 11:42) But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. "The actual words here are 'all herbs'. But the translators have made it read 'all manner of herbs', which we believe is correct." (John Owen is here referring to the Greek word: pas {pas} Strong's {3956} Definitions: including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), ×daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), ×thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

(John 12:32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. "Obviously, the entire human race is not drawn to Christ. 'All' , in this place, can only mean men of all sorts." (Here Owen again points to the fact “all” may mean “all manner of”. It would then be seen to mean:
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all manner of men unto me.” Which speaks of the universal Church rather than universal salvation. In other words all manner of mankind irrespective of race, colour ethnic background,  culture etc. It is interesting to note that the translators have inserted the word “men” which was not in the original, so it could legitimately be understood this way-
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me” which would then be entirely consistent with “(John 6:37) “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;...” and (John 6:39) “And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Notice that only the two alternatives suggested are actually consistent with other scriptures found in the same gospel ) Clearly in the latter verse all is qualified- Christ has lost none of all that God has given him. We cannot be of two minds here, either God has determined to save all of mankind, (in which case experience teaches us this has not been fulfilled, and we need to downgrade the view of omnipotence) or God has determined a definite number to be saved, and this is fulfilled perfectly according to the true view of his majesty.

(Acts 2:17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: "It is clear from experience that the Holy Spirit is not poured out on the whole human race. 'All flesh' can only mean people of every sort- not Jews only." (Owen here is alluding to the great problem for the early Church, and that was- how to convince people, with a mindset, the Jewish people in particular, that God was in fact even remotely interested in anyone other than the Jewish people. This mindset made it essential that Jewish people could only be persuaded if they saw evidence of the broader view of God's love for all manner of mankind from the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. Hence St.Peters use of this passage from the book of Joel. It was only through their respect and esteem for the scriptures that they could possibly entertain this idea of saving people that weren't Jewish.)

(Acts 10:12) Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. "Again, the actual words (in the original language) are 'all beasts'. But the translators have correctly written 'all manner of beasts'." (It is interesting Owen points out this scripture, as it is God giving Peter the vision which was to mean the beginning of wisdom for Peter as far as salvation being for Gentiles as well as the Jews, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Subsequent events unfolded to give Peter the confidence to unequivocally include Gentiles into the Household of God.)

Sometimes, there is more to the word “all” than first appears, and sometimes less, either way that is not all there is to it!